You need to read this book - ASAP ;
More on the book here ;
Bloom contends that memes control men - and that Islam is such a meme.
Bloom sees just one Islam meme - whilst I see many Islam memes and some are truly evil eg Islamist memes such as Al Qaeda whilst other such as Sufism are not evil.
Conetending that that there is just one form of Islam is false.
Bloom says some memes are good and others evil - whilst I say that good and evil are moral ideas rooted in a locality and hence are both cultural artefacts used by power groups to justify their own powers or grabs for positions and power.
He contends that Islam is an 'barbarian' meme that causes men to be barbaric - whilst I believe that such 'barbarian memes' only proliferate as men are by nature barbaric.
Therefore I believe that the meme merely allows men to believe they are acting nobely when they commit acts of evil - when in actuality they are simply evil men doing evil things and that evil men seek evil memes to justify their evil.
But that situation is not limited to Islam - even liberals seek to classify evil as good eg abortion.
But the Islam meme is a meme that cannot be destroyed.
Therefore the only solution is to target those infected with the meme.
Wasting time attacking the meme is pointless.
When a dog has rabies you can only kill it - and that applies to all those infected with the barabric Islamist variant memes of the Islam meme.
We must alloow the good Islam memes to proliferate such as Sufism whilst eradicating the evil Al Qaeda Islamist type memes by targeting those that spread and act in the name of the evil Al Qaeda memes.
Trying to say all Islam memes are the same is not just false, it merely empowers the Islamist Al Qaeda memes when we target decent Muslims and denigrate them as being as evil as the Al Qaeda type Islamists.
Tuesday, 10 February 2009
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Sorry Lee but I strongly disagree.
If you believe that Mohammed was a prophet I'm not particularly bothered what flavour of Islam you claim to be from, you believe in evil.
Muslims can believe in Mohammed - in Islamic countries.
You cannot be decent if you believe in a rapsit, a torturer, an enslaver, a bigamist, a murderer, a liar, a cheat, a thief and of course, a paedophile.
And if sufis are so decent, let's hear their voices. Let's hear them condemn the abuses committed by the other flavours of Islam. Let's see them march for tolerance, for equality of the sexes and for an end to the explict calls for killing jews, christians, mushrikoun and apostates that the Qu'ran calls for and that Mohammed personally acted out in his life.
They can't because all of this is the antithesis of how Mohammed lived his life, i.e. it isn't Islam.
Robert Spencer has more details about how sufis are as intolerant of non-believers as all the other flavours of Islam are:
Sufis and Dhimmitude
I have zero tolerance for Islam and for anyone who believes in Mohammed as a prophet. Because it is from the example of Mohammed - al insan al kamil uswa hasana - as recorded in the ahaddith and sura that the problem we have with Islam stems from and it is an example that, as much you wish otherwise, the sufis follow too.
http://bastardoldholborn.blogs pot.com/2009/02/gert-wilders-b anned-from-uk.html
did you recover your articles ok? I managed to get half a dozen or so on a Word document before it froze up.
Will have ago at getting the articles tongight,
thanks for the tip,
these are just a few of the sects in Islam ;
Al Qaeda Islamism
Therefore to say there is just one Islam is false.
Just as it false to say there is just one christianity eg the differences between Protestantism and Catholicism show that there are hundreds of christian sects , many of whom once slaughtered each other in the millions with religious zeal and glee.
Peddling such myths merely makes us look stupid.
As for spencer he is an Israeli Zionist whose agenda is to peddle propaganda about the nature of Islam to assist Israel.
Therefore he has an agenda.
More muslims are killed by other muslims, the same as more christians are killed by fellow christians, over doctrinal points tahn by non-muslims and non-christians.
Each of those sects proves that there is not one Islam but many Islams.
Therefore we should target the sects that use violence and espouse violence and work with those that reject violence.
Thats what intelligent people do, just as intelligent Catholics in Ireland and NI reject the IRA.
Your argument is a straw man. You are saying "One Islam" I am saying "One Prophet". I stated very clearly that the issue isn't the flavour of Islam the problem stems from the belief in the Islamic Prophet Mohammed, an evil, sex-crazed psychopath. He is THE EXAMPLE for ALL muslims. FACT.
Let me remind you that Nick Griffin faced imprisonement for labelling Islam "a wicked evil faith". That's Islam, not this flavour or that flavour of Islam, but Islam. I trust that you don't believe Nick is unintelligent for making this statement? I think he's spot on for what it's worth.
Christians killing christians? Where? How many? Where are the Christian terrorists who have committed 12,600 atrocities since 9/11? How many Christians of whaever flavour have blown up trains, planes, buses, restaurants, nightclubs and schools? How many Jews have done it? How many buddhists? Ah yes buddhists,3000 of whom have been murdered by Islamic jihadists in Southern Thailand.
You then to your discredit, begin bandying about ad-hominem words such as "stupid", "agenda", "that's what intelligent people do". It is better to attack the argument not the intelligence or character of those who oppose you.
Lee, you have got it badly wrong on this issue and without using ad-hominems against you I will simply ask you:
Where are these "decent" versions of Islam you claim? Show me ONE ISLAMIC COUNTRY where:
Women are equal, gays are equal, children aren't regarded as marriage material at 9 (even less in some Islamic states) where non-believers are tolerated as equals, where women aren't whipped and jailed for sex crimes such as being gang raped, where thieves aren't brutally punished and where the Prophet Mohammed's example is ditched for the phoney bullshit peaceful "westernized" version of Islam you say exits.
You're chasing phantoms, you are refusing to acknowledge the reality of the nature of Islam and the esteem ALL SECTS have for the Prophet Mohammed, the fulcrum of Islam. You are blind to the fact that EVERY ISLAMIC STATE divides the world into 2 houses: The house of war (non-believers) and The house of Islam. It is the duty of ALL muslims to make the whole world dar al Islam as commanded by the Qu'ran and explicity so by the Islamic Prophet Mohammed.
You're suggesting we go after those who use violence. They aren't the sole problem. Before you tackle a problem it is prudent to first acknowledge the nature of it. The problem is that muslims have, wherever they have gone, used da'wa and the demographic weapon to conquer lands in dar al harb. Why do you think the Saudis are pouring MILLIONS of petro-dollars into building mosques, schools etc. throughout the west? Are you going to go after the Saudis Lee? What do you think will happen then mate?
When it comes to Islam Lee you are like most people in the west. You possess a hubris that just cannot accept that you are absolutely despised because you are a kuffar and that there exists a force that is determined to annhilate you and all you stand for.
Instead, you choose to bury your head in the sand, refusing to see with your own eyes the horrors of the entire Islamic world that will soon be inflicted on us. You choose to believe that it is all a giant conspiracy theory managed by the CIA/MI5/Mossad etc. Just like all conspiracy theories, it's only white western governments who can execute such diabolical acts.
Big mistake mate. The Islamic jihad is here and the muslims are after us, they can smell victory and unless we wake up to it they'll have us.
Us or them Lee.
This is one of the most intelligent articles I have read on the 'Islamic Problem'.
The author has thought well out of the box and understood the issue with a perception that seems to be denied to others - or perhaps it would not be so if many of thoise who are so emotionally charged against something (in this case, Islam) did not make themselves so blind.
Don't get me wrong - I am no pro-Islamist and I am as opposed to the Islamification of the West as anyone else who is against it.
The problem is in identifying the inner cause and then taking appropriate steps in erdaicating it.
The meme idea is a very good 'catch-all' explanation for why humanity acts in the ways that it does.
I wish readers would actually take time to study the author's analysis instead of going free-fall into blind emotion.
One of the main reasons why the Western security apparatus has been unable to combat the threat of Islamic extremism is in its use of what I tem 'Blanket Response'. This is where a shot-gun approach is used to eradicate the threat. The Americans are hot on this approach as in their 'Shock and Awe' in Iraq tactics and extreme reponse to the 9/11 events with the passinfg of extreme legislation and security measures.
The more refined and coherent approach ( in which the author has described)can be called the 'Targetted Response' and works along the lines of guided munitions.
Instead of initiating visceral hatred of the West by heavy-ffotted tactis the way to approach the problem is by removing the dangerous eleements and leadership and then spending effort in winning over their converts through the carrot and stick approach, getting them to understand that the extremist way is not the only way and in many cases is not 'Islamic'.
And as for Chris' comments criticising the author I would say that before one condemns Islam one should also examine the origins and development of Christianity. How Paul and his followers abused the teachings of Jesus and turned a Judaic Reforming Movement into an anti-Jewish, pro-Roman Gentile religion.
The history of Christianity is well-known enough to show how the early Church persecuted pagans and Jews, forcefully converted thes peopels en masse, and indullged in wars of religion. The first Crusade was not against the Muslims but against felow Christians - a heretical sect called the Cathars (a gnostic order) in France.
Before one condemns in totalm the extremism of some Muslims perhaps one should examine the origins and history of the Crusades which did do much to inculculate a hatred against the West - which continues rto this day and which is used bt the extremist Islamic groups as effective propaganda.
To those blinded by their own emotional hatred, please look at history and learn the origins of the event and seek solutions that make the maximum effect for little collateral damage.
Excellent article which deserves a wider readinga nd understanding.
And thanks for the links to the book above - now that I know the exact title and details of acquiring it I can now get it to read!
What a load of tosh.
First: The Christians have had an enlightenment and a reformation which, if you care to study it, was about being more in tune with the teachings of Christ. Now, if Islam has an enlightenment, it will bring it more in line with the teachings of Mohammed. That means more violence against unbelievers. Because, and this is the real killer for Islamic apologists such as you, Mohammed was an evil war monger who just loved killing kuffars. Go read about what he did to the Banu Quarayash tribe.
Second: Your knowledge of the Crusades is clearly as in lack as your knowledge of Islam. The Crusades against Islam came in response to the massacre of Byzantine Christians by - guess who? Indeed the Pope refused two pleas to help them out. And despite the crusades, the Byzantines still lost and "that's why it's Istanbul not Constantinople". Next time you're in Turkey go check out the Haghia Sophia. It used to be a beautiful Christian Byzantine cathedral. What is it now? Then you might want to nip over to Kosovo and see what has happened to the orthodox Christians and their churches there.
The Crusades do NOTHING to whip up hatred for the west it is all about hatred for the kuffar as preaced AND practised by Mohammed enshrined explicitly in the Qu'ran and given in the example of Mohammed witnessed and recorded in both the ahaddith and sura. A fact you want to completely ignore.
But as you're so much more peace-loving and knowledgable than a mere hater like me, then you have the same challenge as Lee.
Show me ONE Islamic country where unbelievers are treated as equals.
I can show you dozens of Christian countries. I can even show you a Jewish country where those who aren't jewish are treated as equals. Can you also show me an Islamic one where women, gays and apostates are equals and where kiddies aren't regarded as sex objects.
Then explain to someone as simple-minded as me why it is that no unbeliever - the kuffar - is allowed to enter Mecca and Medina on pain of death. It would also be nice if you explained to me what the exact meaning is of the word "kuffar".
You who knows so much about Islam and likes to hate the Jews and Christians and apologise for "The Religion of Peace" should find this a doddle.
Your diatribe is full of emotion and attacks. Calm down man.
Chris said in response to Lee's comments -
"You then to your discredit, begin bandying about ad-hominem words such as "stupid", "agenda", "that's what intelligent people do". It is better to attack the argument not the intelligence or character of those who oppose you."
Perhaps you should practice what you preach Chris. In an earlier response regarding Israel and its condemnation as a terrorist state, you (presumably because Israel is bashing its own Muslims on its door step) referred to me as a "retard". May I therefore give to what what you said in your own words:
"It is better to attack the argument not the intelligence or character of those who oppose you."
Chris said in answer to Lee,
"I trust that you don't believe Nick is unintelligent for making this statement?"
That's quite a manipulative statement Chris, knowing full well that Lee has associations with Griffin. So if Lee disagrees with Griffin then that makes him against Griffin? I think Lee kow-tows to no-one, including Griffin. Lee knows that Griffin is an intelligent and astute individual, but respects him enough to know that he runs the ship, irrespective of whether Griffin is right or wrong. Griffin has decided to use the Islamic threat as a political issue, which can be a world apart from reality or truth.
"But as you're so much more peace-loving and knowledgable than a mere hater like me, then you have the same challenge as Lee."
I never said that I was any more peace-loving and knowledgeable as you. I don't pretend to know it all - because I don't. As it is I think you have a great deal of knowledge about Islam and are proably far more clued up on it than most people in Britain. If more people were as clued up on Islam and its threat to this counrty and the West then we would not be under the kind of serious threat as we are now. You are no "mere hater" Chris. You have a great deal of understanding but your animosity towards Islam means that you lose sight of other threats and other factors, and it also leads you to a fundamental failure to recognise and to understand the fundamental feature of memes like Islam which lead them to behave like a virulent virus. If you could only stop the blind emotion and begin to perceive the issue in a different way then you will realise that we are not really so far apart in views.
Islam is indeed a threat but where we differ is the perception that Islam is fundamental evil and aggressive. I see the curent manifestation of Islamic militancy as yet another phase, albeit a dangerous one as the West is now seriously weakended and due to open borders and a liberal ideology and multiculturalism now makes this renewed aggression extremely dangerous, possibly fatal.
That does not mean that Islam itself is evil or inherently aggressive and dangerous. The West has been able to live with Islam for hundreds of years, unfortunately several factors including the reliance on petroleum in the Middle East has made this relationship fragile.
Islam is little different from all of the other monotheistic religions in the world. Any religion with a hierachy, a means to control over its adherents and a reliance on divine sanctity of its particular holy book is deeply flawed, manipulative and prone to violence.
Christianity has had a bloody history that has darkened the history of humanity. Christians against heretics and pagans; Roman Christians against Orthodox Christians; Catholics against Protestants; Protestant sect against Protesant sect.
As for the Christian Enlightenment and Reformation you are absolutely correct to raise that. Islam needs its own reformation and if it develops it is likely to become a more benign and enlightened form. But bear in mind what Lee has pointed out and that is the wide variety of different forms of Islam. It is not a monogamous religion - just like Christianity. It is certainly not certain that am Islamic reformation would bring with it a fundamentalist flavour - that is what we have today with the Waheebist sect which has only achieved dominance primarily through Saudi oil.
Most of the world's main religions, including Christianity and Islam, have their own gnostic strands where true spirituality meet above and beyond the confines of man-made religious customs and teaching. Even during the Crusades Christian and Muslim were able to live in relative peace and there was much exchange in ideas and spiritual ideas at the time.
Mohammed was a war-mongerer and some of his teaching has been used to justify Islamic war and terror. But so has the teachings of Jesus and Paul to condemn heretics, witches, pagans, Jews and to launch wars of persecution and conquest against other Christian nations as well as Muslim ones. Many Catholic popes used their power indiscriminately to attack other Christians through armies and the Inquistion, often based on the teachings of Christian apostles and bishops.
Yes, you are right in stating that the Crusades were initiated by the massacre of Christians. This is what sparked off Christendom's response. But to be fair we must also consider the fact that for four centuries Christians were accepted by their Muslim overlords (of the Saracen caliphate) But in the eleventh century the Seljukian Turks, a prominent Tartar tribe and zealous followers of Islam, wrested from the caliphs almost all their Asiatic possessions, including Jerusalem. Besides, it was not just the massacre of Christians that sparked off the Crusades but other factors including Rome's desire to bring in the schismatic Eastern Church too as well as the seeking of spoils and land for Europe's nobledom.
And while we're at it even the so-called 'peaceful' religion of Buddhism has a bloody history marked by wars and persecution.
Zen-Buddhism for example influenced the most sophisticated warrior philosophy of the East: the extremely brutal and suicidal Samurai Ethics. In Sri Lanka Buddhist violence and Buddhist racism are the order of the day. In Burma and in Kashmir Buddhist armies are fighting. There it is the Muslim communities that are suffering form the Buddhist armies.
It’s not well known that the brain trust of the SS in Nazi Germany was extremely interested in Vedic- and Buddhist- teachings, in the Lamaist culture, and in Zen-Meditation with the goal to construct with elements of these eastern believes its own Nazi-Religion.Muslims have been victims of violence by “peaceful” Buddhists for centuries. Buddhist Vietnam and Khmer Empires repeatedly attacked Champa, ultimately destroying it. Buddhist Japan attacked much of Asia, including Indonesia, Malaysia. Today, Buddhist Thailand attacks Pattani Muslims. In Sri Lanka, Buddhists attack peaceful Muslims. Don’t forget Buddhists aggressive attacks against fellow Buddhists.
As far as Kosovo goes you are right. There it is the plight of the Serbs and their Christian Orthodox heritage that is under threat of extinction from a resurgent and militant Islamic enemy.
As far as showing you one Mulsim country where Believers and Non-Believers are treated equally, there is no country as far as I am aware. Islam in its monotheistic form has no countenance for those who are Mulsim, but then again I never said otherwise. And that is because you are so full of antipathy on this one issue that you have become blind to the world outside. And because you are so obsessed (the new anti-semitiism perhaps of the Right, where the focus of hatred and obsessiveness is now the Muslim instead of the Jew) you regard those who do not share your full-scale obsession and hatred of Muslims as either the enemy or appeasers or some kind of peace-loving peaceniks.
You make the serious error in equating non-hatred of Islam as therefore being a hater of Jews and Christians. You would do well not to make such serious misunderstandings as this.I can assure you Chris that I am as fully aware of the inherent threat of Islam as you are and regard Islamification as a grave threat.
The worls is not a black and white world where everything is either/or. Most of the world is grey and so are the issues. I do not think for one moment that Lee or myself underestimate Islam or the way that it treats those whom it subjugates. But you need to remember that the world is a great deal more complicated than simple political grandstanding makes out.
Oh don't worry about me being calm and rational. I am perfectly calm largely because I know I am right and that you are making excuses as all apologists do. It's fun for me, honestly :-)
You called Israel "a terrorist state". If you believe that you are a retard. And a hypocrite. It's you who hates. Don't lecture people on "emotion" and "calming down" when you make such a stupid, unfounded statement as that. You should be ashamed to make such an idiotic statement.
Your knowledge is in lack. you are resorting to liberal moral equivalence that is again, ridiculous. Because it doesn't matter a toss if Judaism and Christianity are the worst religions in the world, it doesn't have ANY bearing whatsoever on whether or not Islam is a hate-filled intolerant ideology.
Yet it is so easy to shut me up and make me look like the emotional hot-headed irrational manipulative, hater, racist, heretic and God knows what else you'll come up with to dodge the issue. All you have to do is:
1.Show me a single Islamic counrty where kuffars are treated as equals.
2. Show me all of these Christians and Jews who are just like Muslims and who invoke the verses of their holy books to wage war against unbelievers.
3. Give me the exact meaning of "Kuffar" and tell me why kuffars aren't allowed in Mecca or Medina on pain of death.
That is all you have to do. I believe you and Lee have made statements about Islam that are totally at odds with the reality of this religion of hate that is threatening Britain, the British people and future generations of Britons. Either I'm wrong or you are so prove me wrong with facts or accept that you are wrong.
Here's some more evidence I use to support my claim that Islam is THE problem and that it always has been:
Watch all of the videos - if you can bear to haer the painful truth that is.
So come on, show me just one tolerant Islamic nation, someone as calm and as rational as you can manage that I'm sure. If you do I will apologise to Lee and never ever darken his blog again with my irrational hatred. On my word of honour.
Ball's in your court Mr Potter. Put up or shut up.
I have already agreed that Isalm is a serious problem and that the Islamification of the West represents a dire threat to the West, its peoples, its heritage and its integrity. So what exactly is the problem?
It must be a good feeling to know that one is right. This shouldn't be about ego and superiority. It should be about factual superiority and the search for some semblance of truth.
I don't know if I am entirely correct with my statements and opinions, but it seems that you know that you already are.
Yet again you bandy terms of abuse as "retard" because someone calls Israel a terrorist state. If you do not consider this to be the case then explain to me the actions and behaviour of Israel against the Arabs, and its excessive use of force against its Palestinian neighbours. It is a terrorist nation as defined by the defintion used by George Bush (he who presided over the nation that is Isarel's biggest friend and supplier of money and arms). There can be no shame in making a statement that fits the facts. You should not let either emotion or ideology get in the way of perception, otherwise you end up with misjudgments and flawed policy. It is the mindset of the extremist.
Nothwithstanding though that the Arab nations have tried to destroy Israel since its inception by military force and that Isarel has been the subject of severe terrorist actions and threats from extremist Palestinian groups. There can be little justification for such acts and atrocities.
But it seems quite clear (unles I am grossly mistaken) that you see Israel as a victim and as a nation which does no harm. I would suggest that is because you are either a Zionist or seeing it from from expediancy, seeing Israel as a non-Arab nation which is on the frontline of Islamism and is defending itself from such Islamic encroachments.
Such perceptions can cause failure of judgment and error in not seeing the full picture.
That does not make people as me and Lee Barnes "apologists" as you claim. Neither of us have no compulsion in apologising for Islam or for Zionists. We simply wish to see the bigger picture and the truth (as far as the truth can itself be obtained).
I never disagreed with you that Islam is a hate-filled religion - because it is, or certainly the way it is practised by some of its adherents. For every Muslim terrorist and extremist there are hundreds more who are not. Should we condemn them all? And if we treat them all as terrorists and extremists do we not simply make a rod for our collective Western backs as we create even more Jihahists in our midst? It is actions like that serve the manic US war machine in Iraq giving rise to more and more atroctiies, more and more terrorists, more and more propaganda and yet more and more war. That mindset is the mindset of the idiot who has lost all rational control and is simply reacting to events.
In answer to your questions I have ALREADY dealt with the first one. My challenge is not to defend Islam as I regard both Islam, Judaism, Christianity and all the other monotheistic religions as similar in aspirations and practise. They seek to control people and to exercise control, manipulating their believers through 'divine' justifications that the 'word of God' has been revealed through them. I simply have no truck to play with Islam. And no, there are NO Islamic countries to my knowledge where non-believers are treated equally to believers.
But to use the moral equivalence argument there are few places in the world where different people are treated equally. Even in the UK, Christians are now virtually persecuted, whilst most of the world's main religions are pretty exclusive.
Your second question is tempreed by its relativism. As I have said what we are witnessing is a cyclic surge of Islamism marked by unique circumstances and a pretty virulent form of Islam. It is not solely predicated on the interpretation and practise of certain verses in the Koran.
If you do want it that way then you only have to look at the Old Testament which has been used to justify wards of genocide by both Jthe Israelites and later Christians (check out Deutronomy for instance - parts of it read like am Israelite Mein Kampf). Then again if you read the New Testament that work has been used to justify barbaric anti-semitism for centuries, blaming the Jews for the crucifixion of Christ. Again, that has been used as the divine commandment to issue pograms against the Jews even until recently, contributing to the climate of hatred against the Jews in Europe during the Nazi period. Again, it could be argued that the Bible has been used to excuse hatred against homosexuals because of certain passages in both the Old and New Testaments. The Bible has also been used to excuse slavery too.And let us not forget the Talmud which offers diatribes of hated against Christians.
The point, however, is to recognise that any holy book of any religions does not give its adherents carte blanch to wafe war or persecution against non-believers. It contributes yes, but it isn't the key. As I've said all the world's religions have given rise to wars and persecutions. It is the nature of man-made religion itself which is the problem.
As regards your third question you know as well as I do that the term equates to an 'unbeliever', or strictly someone who refuses to recognise God or Allah) and Mohammed as his prophet.The term is used to cover all unbelievers, non-Muslims, apostates from Islam and even between Muslims of different sects. And of course this is used to create a distinction between the 'belivers' and the non-belivers' and hence of diferences in treatment. Why would I or Mr Barnes agree to this kind of unequal treatment or disnction, or to 'apologise' for it?
All we are saying is that the present incarnation of Islam is intolerant and aggressive, but that you cannot paint all of its adherents as extremists or terrorists. Militant Islam must be curtailed but it won't be done through sloppy thinking, ill-considered judgment and even simplistic political posturing.
Since all spheres of human ideologies and activities carry their own various netaive memes one simply cannot eradicate 'terror' or 'Islam' or anything else effectively. One has to target the (bad) meme carriers and take them out. The rest have to persuaded by counter-propaganda and example.
It's an interesting exercise to study the leading nations who have engaged in the persecution of Christians ( amongst other persecuted groups).
Islamic nations made up more than half of the top 10 countries listed as the world’s worst persecutor of Christians in a new report.
Saudi Arabia again took the No. 2 spot, followed by Iran (No. 3), Afghanistan (No. 4), Somalia (No. 5), Maldives (No. 6), Yemen (No. 7), and Uzbekistan (No. 10). Compared to last year’s Open Doors’ World Watch List, the 2009 list had one more Muslim dominated country.
Taking the top spot again this year for the seventh year in a row is the totalitarian state of North Korea. Yet North Korea is not a Muslim state, being an atheist state run by Communists.
Also Afghanistan moved up two spots to No. 5 this year because of increased activities by the Taliban, a Muslim extremist group that formerly ruled the country.
Interestingly, the report noted, both China and Bhutan, both Asian countries, dropped out of the top 10.
Both Laos (No 8) and Bhutan (No 12) are Buddhist.
So, while Muslim nations make up more than half of the top 10 in persecuting Christians we must also be balanced and see that both atheist regimes and Buddhist regimes are equally at home in persecuting Christians.
India at No 22 is also a Hindu state.
And not us forget that in at least one case (Saudi Arabia, No 2) the West considers it to be a close ally and the recipient of large amounts of military aid.
If the Christian West wanted to prevent persecutions of Christians it could do so through a ixture of threat and enticement. Yet the world of realpolitiks prospers over principle and morality, and therefore we must make the conclusion that to some extent such persecution is at least at the connivance of the West, and not just solely at the hands of these persecuting regimes.
Post a Comment